Jump to content

Catch-up with SEP & 401k


DP
 Share

Recommended Posts

I Still maintain that the catch-up limit is a deferral and the deferral limits are individual limits and therefore the SIMPLE catch up limit is $ 2,500.00.

Please cite the specific section of this regulation that implies multiple plans of different employers allow for a SIMPLE Catch up contribution of more than $2,500.00

JEVD

Making the complex understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jevd - please take a look at 402(g)(1)©. For purposes of the 402(g) limit, the limit for catch-up contributions specifically refers ONLY to 414(v)(2)(B)(i). It does not reference (B)(ii). If it referred to (B)(ii) I would agree with you, but since the limit is (currently) specifically $5,000, then that's your answer. 414(v) and the accompanying regulations are dealing with individual plan limits, and the individual SIMPLE IRA must indeed limit any catch-up to the 2,500. But, if they are unrelated employers, then the total limit reverts to the limit specified in 402(g)(1)© - and hence to the 5,000 in 414(v)(2)(B)(i).

That's how I read it, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jevd - please take a look at 402(g)(1)©. For purposes of the 402(g) limit, the limit for catch-up contributions specifically refers ONLY to 414(v)(2)(B)(i). It does not reference (B)(ii). If it referred to (B)(ii) I would agree with you, but since the limit is (currently) specifically $5,000, then that's your answer. 414(v) and the accompanying regulations are dealing with individual plan limits, and the individual SIMPLE IRA must indeed limit any catch-up to the 2,500. But, if they are unrelated employers, then the total limit reverts to the limit specified in 402(g)(1)© - and hence to the 5,000 in 414(v)(2)(B)(i).

That's how I read it, anyway.

414(v)(2)(B)(i) states:

414(v)(2)(B)(i) In the case of an applicable employer plan other than a plan described in section 401(k)(11) or 408(p) the applicable dollar amount shall be determined in accordance with the following table:

Doesn't exception phrase apply?

If it doesn't then I think its a mistake that hasn't been caught and the possibility of the situation existing is rare although apparently has occurred inthis case.

That's my interpertation

JEVD

Making the complex understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw that too - in fact, my initial reading was exactly the same as yours. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this - after re-reading it, I still remain of the opinion that 402(g) language would have referred to (ii) if there was intent to limit the overall limit to the 2,500. 414 has to throw in (ii) because it is dealing with individual plan limits. Your interpretation is certainly safe, and may well be the correct reading.

Of course, wantstolearn probably has the only actual such case in the entire USA, so this is unlikely to generate a lot of controversy at any practical level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Belgarath for your informative discussion. I appreciate your professionalism.

I agree this is probably the only case that will ever come up.

regards.

JEVD

Making the complex understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...